In the recent case of Cartier International AG and others v British Telecommunications Plc and another before the Supreme Court, the Court was asked to decide who should pay the costs of compliance when an injunction is obtained against an innocent intermediary to prevent the use of their facilities for infringing or unlawful purposes.

Rachel Warren said: "Whilst some rights holders maybe concerned that these costs could become prohibitively expensive, in fact in its decision the Court has limited recovery to "reasonable costs" of complying with and implementing the blocking order; these are likely to be fairly modest in practice.Banks, for example, have claimed 'fixed' administrative charges at modest levels for complying with and implementing Norwich Pharmacal orders or freezing injunctions for many years and it would not be surprising to see a similar approach develop over time by ISP respondents to blocking injunctions. This would be a positive step for rights holders and ISPs alike, and provide certainty for parties on both sides. In practice the level of costs is likely to be worked through the Courts until a standard is met and then this is likely to be followed in other cases. In my view these costs should be comparatively modest and ought not dissuade rights holders from making use of blocking injunctions as part of their IP protection arsenal."

{

In this recent case before the Supreme Court, the Court was asked to decide who should pay the costs of compliance when an injunction is obtained against an innocent intermediary to prevent the use of his/her facilities for infringing or unlawful purposes. Rachel Warren provides some insight into the decision.